Taking an oath is not just an admission to practice law. Since it is taken before the Supreme Court, lawyers are also expected to uphold principles and values expected from lawyers. An oath is not just a spoken word. It is not just something that you utter and forget the moment you step out of the Supreme Court. Once you take oath, you are tied to the duties and responsibilities of a lawyer and infringement will lead to suspension, disbarment and other disciplinary actions. The Supreme Court states that "If the practice of law is to remain an honorable profession and attain its basic ideal, those enrolled in its ranks should not only master its tenets and principles but should also, in their lives, accord continuing fidelity to them. Thus, the requirement of good moral character is of much greater import, as far as the general public is concerned, than the possession of legal learning. Lawyers are expected to abide by the tenets of morality, not only upon admission to the Bar but also throughout their legal career, in order to maintain one's good standing in that exclusive and honored fraternity. Good moral character is more than just the absence of bad character. Such character expresses itself in the will to do the unpleasant thing if it is right and the resolve not to do the pleasant thing if it is wrong. This must be so because vast interests are committed to his care; he is the recipient of unbounded trust and confidence; he deals with his client's property, reputation, his life, his all."
Here is one case of disbarment/suspension of a lawyer:
In the administrative case, complainant Delia Murillo had written a letter to the Chief Justice, date April 1, 1958, alleging that Superable employed her in his office, took advantage of her status as an employee, made love to her and even proposed marriage; that although she had informed him that she was a married woman, still he assured her that he being a lawyer with the necessary connections, they could arrange the matter and still marry each other; that he finally convinced her and because he was her employer, she finally gave herself up to him and they cohabited for some time, as a result of which cohabitation, a child was born, who was named Nicolas Superable III, but that later on, he abandoned her, for which reason she filed the charges above-mentioned.
Upon receipt of her letter, this Court ordered Superable to file his answer. In the same, he admitted having employed Delia Murillo in his office. He claims that when she applied for the job, she introduced herself as an unmarried woman and because of that information, he really made love to her and even proposed marriage, but that some time in October, 1956, a friend of his informed and warned him that she was not single but was married to one Mr. Rosario, although they were living apart; that he also found out later Delia and had been maintaining intimate relations with other men, such as a certain Ricardo Macalla, an employee of the Tacloban Electric Light and Ice Company. He flatly denied that he was the father of the child named Nicolas Superable III. In his answer Superable also voiced his suspicion that the complaint of Delia Murillo was instigated by the Tacloban ElectricLight and Ice Company, which he had been attacking in his newspaper, the Eagle, a weekly paper published in Tacloban, Leyte, his attacks having as their target the exorbitant rates charged by the company, the harsh andunreasonable practice followed by the same, such as, disconnecting the electric line to houses whose owners failed to pay their accounts at the end of the month. Superable also presented in support of his answer the affidavits of Enrique Militante and Segundino Villablanca.
Apparently satisfied with his answer, this Tribunal by resolution of May 26, 1958, dismissed the complaint of Delia Murillo for lack of merit. However, this dismissal did not end the case. It had its sequel.
On May 19, 1958, about seven days before the dismissal of the administrative case, Superable also wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, requesting that some sort of action be taken against Dodong R. Herrera, Noning Susaya andFrank Morada, all of Tacloban City, the first being the owner, proprietor, publisher and editor of the tabloid Eastern Star, a weekly published in Tacloban City, the second and third being the business manager and circulation manager, respectively, of said paper; Delia Murillo, the same complainant in the administrative case, and Victoriano Chan, general manager of the Tacloban Electric Light and Ice Company. The burden of the letter was that on May 17, 1958, that is to say, two days before his letter and about nine days before the main case for disbarment or disciplinary action against him was dismissed, the persons above-mentioned had published in the Eastern Star the charges or complaint filed by Delia Murillo against him; that said publication was a violation of the Rules of Court, which considers private and confidential proceedings against an attorney; and that the publication had cause him mental anguish and suffering, besmirched his reputation and made him the object of public ridicule, besides reducing his clientele in his practice of law, at the same time causing him considerable embarrassment, both professionally and socially. Attached to said letter of Superable was a copy of the issue of the Eastern Star where the publication was made.
Acting upon the letter of Superable, this Tribunal by Resolution of June 9, 1958, ordered the five persons, Dodong Herrera, Noning Susaya, Frank Moraga, Delia Murillo and Victoriano Chan to show cause within ten from notice why they should not be declared in contempt of court and punished accordingly. Pursuant to our resolution, the five respondents filed their answer on July 8, 1958, the first three admitting the publication but claiming that it was done only to help the court in arriving at the sound and correct determination of the main case, namely, the administrative charges against Superable; that the news item or publication was devoid of any editorial comment; that they were not aware of Section 10 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court. Delia Murillo and Victoriano Chan denied any connection with the publication. On July 10, 1958, Dodong Herrera, Noning Susaya and Frank Morada filed a supplemental answer, and by our resolution of July 14, 1958, complainant Superable was required to file a reply to the answer and supplemental answer, which he did on October 29, 1958.
The contempt incident was set for hearing on December 5, 1958. On December 3, 1958, the five respondents filed a motion for postponent of the hearing, and the following day, they filed a motion for the appointment of a commissioner to hear the case, for the reason that it required the reception of evidence from both parties, and that considering the distance from Tacloban City, where they resided, to Manila, it was convenient and proper to hold the hearing in Tacloban.
By resolution of December 5, 1958, we denied the motion for postponement of hearing and both parties were given a period of twenty days within which to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda in lieu of oral argument. But upon consideration of the motion praying for the appointment of a commissioner to receive evidence, the Court resolved to give the movants twenty days within which to submit a deposition.
On December 26, 1958, complainant Superable filed his memorandum with several annexes, consisting mostly of issues of the newspaper Eagle, which he edited and published, and of the Eastern Star, edited and published by Dodong Herrera. On January 2, 1959, respondents filed their memorandum.
On December 13, 1958, both parties filed with this Court a "Notice to Take Deposition", wherein they agreed that Judge Eugenio N. Brillo of the Municipal Court of Tacloban City take the deposition mentioned by us in our resolution of December 5, 1958. At the taking of the said deposition before Judge Brillo on December 18, 1958, the parties and their counsel appeared and several witnesses testified, such as, Superable on his own behalf and his witnesses Segundo Villablanca and Rene Tan, as well as Generoso (Dodong) Herrera and Hermogenes Susaya. Documentary evidence was also submitted. The transcript of the proceedings had before Judge Brillo, consisting of 69 pages, was filed with us by Judge Brillo on January 2, 1959.
On January 20, 1959, Delia Murillo wrote a letter to the Chief Justice, attaching thereto some affidavits, asking that the complaint against Atty. Superable which, as already stated, had been dismissed, be reinstated and that a formal investigation be made so that she may be able to present her proof against him. By resolution of January 26, 1959, her request was denied.
Lawyers do not only represent the law;they are the law as quoted in the article written by J.Jose L. Sabio. This is why when a lawyer takes oath, they are not merely attending a ceremony, but making a promise to become guardians of truth.